Rose colored glasses? I think not.
I have no illusions about how the world works. However, that does not mean it has to work that way.
Economically, on the left, we have have people who want to impose control from above. On the right, we have people who reject external control, but believe that self control and self sacrifice are vices and operate as if the universe revolves around them.
Adam Smith is known to many as a father of capitalist theory due to his work: "The Wealth of Nations" wherein he discussed self-interest and the "invisible hand" meaning to many, the market, controlling decision making. However, his other great work: "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" emphasized "sympathy" wherein observing the difficulties and struggles of others would guide one's own moral decision making (which, of course requires an innate moral sense, a conscience).
There is no conflict. Without external controls, one can choose to act for the greater good of society, and thereby both react to the market and influence the market in a positive direction. One can choose to act from moral conscience and to let the market guide them. To ignore the conscience in favor of the market simply exchanges the external control of the government for another- the nameless, faceless others who make up the market. Either way, that is an external control. Ceding decision making to the market alone and ignoring conscience does not make you a "free man" or a "good capitalist".
My call is simply for people to choose to act in a way in which, if applied universally, would bring the greatest good to the most people. In academic circles, it's known as the First Formulation of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. For a couple thousand years before that, it was known as 'the Golden Rule."
In other words, if I believe that the broader availability of ammunition is a good thing, which I do, I am not bound to "let the market decide" and buy all I can to resell at a profit. There should be no external control preventing me from doing that. There shouldn't need to be. I take my belief and then act accordingly. If I want ammunition to be widely available, I buy only what I need, or not at all for a period of time to stabilize the situation.
I think we all know that, theoretically, it could work. However, what we have are people who think that "rugged individualism" and "capitalism" demand only that blatant, individual self-interest be considered.
I have no illusions about how the world works. However, that does not mean it has to work that way.
Economically, on the left, we have have people who want to impose control from above. On the right, we have people who reject external control, but believe that self control and self sacrifice are vices and operate as if the universe revolves around them.
Adam Smith is known to many as a father of capitalist theory due to his work: "The Wealth of Nations" wherein he discussed self-interest and the "invisible hand" meaning to many, the market, controlling decision making. However, his other great work: "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" emphasized "sympathy" wherein observing the difficulties and struggles of others would guide one's own moral decision making (which, of course requires an innate moral sense, a conscience).
There is no conflict. Without external controls, one can choose to act for the greater good of society, and thereby both react to the market and influence the market in a positive direction. One can choose to act from moral conscience and to let the market guide them. To ignore the conscience in favor of the market simply exchanges the external control of the government for another- the nameless, faceless others who make up the market. Either way, that is an external control. Ceding decision making to the market alone and ignoring conscience does not make you a "free man" or a "good capitalist".
My call is simply for people to choose to act in a way in which, if applied universally, would bring the greatest good to the most people. In academic circles, it's known as the First Formulation of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. For a couple thousand years before that, it was known as 'the Golden Rule."
In other words, if I believe that the broader availability of ammunition is a good thing, which I do, I am not bound to "let the market decide" and buy all I can to resell at a profit. There should be no external control preventing me from doing that. There shouldn't need to be. I take my belief and then act accordingly. If I want ammunition to be widely available, I buy only what I need, or not at all for a period of time to stabilize the situation.
I think we all know that, theoretically, it could work. However, what we have are people who think that "rugged individualism" and "capitalism" demand only that blatant, individual self-interest be considered.
Last edited:
